[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 145 (Wednesday, July 29, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40549-40551]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20235]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-298]
Nebraska Public Power District; Cooper Nuclear Station;
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the
issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-46 that
was issued to Nebraska Public Power District (the licensee) for
operation of the Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS), located in Nemaha
County, Nebraska.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed amendment will revise the existing, or current,
Technical Specifications (CTS) for the CNS in their entirety based on
the guidance provided in NUREG-1433, ``Standard Technical
Specifications, General Electric Plants, BWR/4,'' Revision 1, dated
April 1995, and in the Commission's ``Final Policy Statement on
Technical Specifications Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors,''
published on July 22, 1993 (58 FR 39132). The proposed amendment is in
accordance with the licensee's amendment request dated March 27, 1997,
as supplemented by the letters dated September 29 and December 22,
1997, and February 9,
[[Page 40550]]
March 13, March 26, April 16, and May 6, 1998.
The Need for the Proposed Action
It has been recognized that nuclear safety in all nuclear power
plants would benefit from an improvement and standardization of plant
Technical Specifications (TS). The ``NRC Interim Policy Statement on
Technical Specification Improvements for Nuclear Power Plants,''(52 FR
3788) contained proposed criteria for defining the scope of TS. Later,
the Commission's ``Final Policy Statement on Technical Specifications
Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors,'' published on July 22, 1993
(58 FR 39132), incorporated lessons learned since publication of the
interim policy statement and formed the basis for revisions to 10 CFR
50.36, TS. ``The Final Rule'' (60 FR 36953) codified criteria for
determining the content of TS. To facilitate the development of
standard TS for nuclear power reactors, each power reactor vendor
owners' group (OG) and the NRC staff developed standard TS. For the
CNS, the Improved Standard Technical Specifications (ISTS) are in
NUREG-1433. This document formed the basis for the CNS Improved
Technical Specifications (ITS) conversion. The NRC Committee to review
Generic Requirements (CRGR) reviewed the ISTS, made note of its safety
merits, and indicated its support of the conversion by operating plants
to the ISTS.
Description of the Proposed Change
The proposed changes to the CTS are based on NUREG-1433 and on
guidance provided by the Commission in its Final Policy Statement. The
objective of the changes is to completely rewrite, reformat, and
streamline the CTS (i.e., to convert the CTS to the ITS). Emphasis is
placed on human factors principles to improve clarity and understanding
of the TS. The Bases section of the TS has been significantly expanded
to clarify and better explain the purpose and foundation of each
specification. In addition to NUREG-1433, portions of the CTS were also
used as the basis for the development of the CNS ITS. Plant-specific
issues (e.g., unique design features, requirements, and operating
practices) were discussed with the licensee, and generic matters with
General Electric and other OGs.
The proposed changes can be grouped into the following four
categories: relocated requirements, administrative changes, less
restrictive changes involving deletion of requirements, and more
restrictive changes. These categories are as follows:
1. Relocated requirements (i.e., LR or R changes) are items which
are in the CTS, but do not meet the criteria set forth in the Final
Policy Statement. The Final Policy Statement establishes a specific set
of objective criteria for determining which regulatory requirements and
operating restrictions should be included in the TS. Relocation of
requirements to documents with an established control program,
controlled by the regulations or the TS, allows the TS to be reserved
only for those conditions or limitations upon reactor operation which
are necessary to obviate the possibility of an abnormal situation or
event giving rise to an immediate threat to the public health and
safety, thereby focusing the scope of the TS. In general, the proposed
relocation of items from the CTS to the Updated Safety Analysis Report
(USAR), appropriate plant-specific programs, station procedures, or ITS
Bases follows the guidance of NUREG-1433. Once these items have been
relocated to other licensee-controlled documents, the licensee may
revise them under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 or other NRC-approved
control mechanisms, which provide appropriate procedural means to
control changes by the licensee.
2. Administrative changes (i.e., A changes) involve the
reformatting and rewording of requirements, consistent with the style
of the ISTS in NUREG-1433, to make the TS more readily understandable
to station operators and other users. These changes are purely
editorial in nature, or involve the movement or reformatting of
requirements without affecting the technical content. Application of a
standardized format and style will also help ensure consistency is
achieved among specifications in the TS. During this reformatting and
rewording process, no technical changes (either actual or
interpretational) to the TS will be made unless they are identified and
justified.
3. Less restrictive changes and the deletion of requirements
involves portions of the CTS (i.e., L changes) which (1) provide
information that is descriptive in nature regarding the equipment,
systems, actions, or surveillances, (2) provide little or no safety
benefit, and (3) place an unnecessary burden on the licensee. This
information is proposed to be deleted from the CTS and, in some
instances, moved to the proposed Bases, USAR, or procedures. The
removal of descriptive information to the Bases of the TS, USAR, or
procedures is permissible because these documents will be controlled
through a process that utilizes 10 CFR 50.59 and other NRC-approved
control mechanisms. The relaxations of requirements were the result of
generic NRC actions or other analyses. They will be justified on a
case-by-case basis for the CNS and described in the safety evaluation
to be issued with the license amendment.
4. More restrictive requirements (i.e., M changes) are proposed to
be implemented in some areas to impose more stringent requirements that
are in the CTS. These more restrictive requirements are being imposed
to be consistent with the ISTS. Such changes have been made after
ensuring the previously evaluated safety analysis for the CNS was not
affected. Also, other more restrictive technical changes have been made
to achieve consistency, correct discrepancies, and remove ambiguities
from the TS. Examples of more restrictive requirements include: placing
a Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) on station equipment which is
not required by the CTS to be operable; more restrictive requirements
to restore inoperable equipment; and more restrictive surveillance
requirements.
There are six other proposed changes to the CTS that may be
included in the proposed amendment to convert the CTS to the ITS. These
are beyond-scope changes in that they are changes to both the CTS and
the ISTS. For the CNS, these are the following:
1. ITS LCO 3.1.8, Scram Discharge Volume (SDV) Vent and Drain
Valves, revise the ISTS LCO 3.1.8 Action A to require that for vent and
drain lines with one inoperable valve, the lines be isolated within 7
days, rather than restore the valves to operable status. (Change ITS
3.1.8-L.4)
2. CNS Setpoint Methodology, revise the setpoint and allowable
values in the ITS Section 3.3 from the values in the CTS.
3. ITS 3.3.2.1, CTS Table 3.2.C, relocate the upscale trip level
settings (or allowable values) for the rod block monitor upscale trips
to the core operating limits report (Change ITS 3.3.2.1-RL.2)
4. ITS 3.3.3.2, CTS Tables 3.2.I-1 and 4.2.I, relocate the list of
alternate shutdown instrumentation and the minimum number of channels
for each instrument to the IST Bases (Change ITS 3.3.3.2-RL.1)
5. ITS 3.8.3, CTS 3.9.A, 1.5.b, increase the minimum volume of fuel
oil in the diesel generator fuel oil storage tanks. (Change ITS 3.8.3-
M.2)
6. ITS 5.5.9, CTS 4.9.A.2.d and e, diesel fuel oil testing program,
addition of a new ASTM-approved test as an alternative to the clear and
bright
[[Page 40551]]
appearance test in CTS 4.9.A.2.e.1.d) (Change ITS 5.5-M.4)
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed
conversion of the CTS to the ITS for the CNS, including the six beyond-
scope issues identified above. Changes which are administrative in
nature have been found to have no effect on the technical content of
the TS.
The increased clarity and understanding these changes bring to the
TS are expected to improve the operators control of the CNS in normal
and accident conditions.
Relocation of requirements from the CTS to other licensee-
controlled documents does not change the requirements themselves.
Future changes to these requirements may then be made by the licensee
under 10 CFR 50.59 and other NRC-approved control mechanisms which will
ensure continued maintenance of adequate requirements. All such
relocations have been found consistent with the guidelines of NUREG-
1433 and the Commission's Final Policy Statement.
Changes involving more restrictive requirements have been found to
enhance station safety.
Changes involving less restrictive requirements have been reviewed
individually. When requirements have been shown to provide little or no
safety benefit, or to place an unnecessary burden on the licensee,
their removal from the TS is justified. In most cases, relaxations
previously granted to individual plants on a plant-specific basis were
the result of a generic action, or of agreements reached during
discussions with the OG and found to be acceptable for the station.
Generic relaxations contained in NUREG-1433 have been reviewed by the
NRC staff and found to be acceptable.
In summary, the proposed revisions to the TS have been found to
provide control of station operations such that reasonable assurance
will be provided that the health and safety of the public will be
adequately protected.
The proposed amendment will not increase the probability or
consequences of accidents, will not change the quantity or types of any
effluent that may be released offsite, and will not significantly
increase occupational or public doses. Also, these changes do not
affect the design of the station, do not involve any modifications to
the station, and do not increase the licensed power and allowable
effluents for the station. The changes will not create any new or
unreviewed environmental impacts that were not considered in the Final
Environmental Statement (FES) related to the operation of the CNS dated
February 1973. Therefore, there are no significant radiological impacts
associated with the proposed amendment.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed
amendment involves features located entirely within the restricted area
defined in 10 CFR Part 20. They do not affect non-radiological station
effluents and have no other environmental impact. Therefore, there are
no significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with
the proposed amendment.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed amendment.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Since the Commission has concluded there is no significant
environmental impact associated with the proposed amendment, any
alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be
evaluated. The principal alternative to the proposed amendment would be
to deny the amendment. Denial of the licensee's application would not
reduce the environmental impacts of the CNS operations, but it would
prevent the safety benefits to the station from the conversion to the
ITS. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the
alternative action are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the FES for the CNS.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on July 22, 1998, the staff
consulted with the Nebraska State official, Cheryl Rogers of the State
Department of Health, regarding the environmental impact of the
proposed action. The State official had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has
determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the
proposed action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's application dated March 27, 1997, as supplemented by the
letters dated September 29 and December 22, 1997, and February 9, March
13, March 26, April 16, and May 6, 1998, which is available for public
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public
document room located at the Auburn Memorial Library, 1810 Courthouse
Avenue, Auburn, Nebraska 68305.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of July 1998.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
David L. Wigginton,
Acting Director, Project Directorate IV-1, Division of Reactor Projects
III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-20235 Filed 7-28-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
